On 15th August, Presidents Trump and Putin met in person in Alaska to discuss ending the Ukraine war, while their two nations are still at war in Ukraine, Russia through a direct military intervention, and the United States indirectly, using Ukraine as a proxy.

This meeting comes at a time when Ukraine is facing the prospect of a devastating military defeat – one that can no longer be averted by further arms deliveries or financial aid. This increases the temptation, particularly among European NATO states, to try to prevent such a defeat through dangerous military escalation and an ever more direct NATO involvement in the war. Against the risks that such escalation would entail, the Trump–Putin meeting takes on enormous significance for “Pursuing Peace” – as the banner at the joint press conference reads.

It is certainly too early for a comprehensive assessment of the outcomes, as both presidents understandably remained tight-lipped during their joint press conference and no final communiqué was issued. Nevertheless, four highly significant developments are already emerging from this meeting, which may influence the course of the war in favour of a peaceful resolution.

  • First: after years of portraying Putin as an international pariah and aiming to reduce Russia to a mere regional power through the Ukraine war, the US now welcomes Putin as the president of a major power, meeting with President Trump on equal footing in Alaska. At the same time, the Europeans and Ukraine, with their pro-war stance, were not invited. These two aspects of the meeting in Alaska alone appear to hint at who is the winner and who is the loser in the Ukraine war.

  • Second: the direct meeting between the US and Russian presidents has significantly increased the chances of a diplomatic resolution to the war. The risk of the conflict spiralling into a vortex of violence and counter-violence – even nuclear confrontation – appears to be averted for now.

  • Third: it is highly likely that the US will begin to withdraw militarily from the conflict following this meeting. Without American support, EU states and the United Kingdom will be unable to continue the war, let alone to escalate it. While this will deepen the rift between the US and the EU/UK, it may help bring about a peaceful solution for Ukraine.

  • Fourth: while the US has not abandoned its call for a ceasefire, it now signals an understanding that a fundamental solution must first be found to the root causes of the war. The aim would be to achieve a permanent peaceful solution to the Ukraine conflict.

This fourth point is particularly problematic, as there is no consensus between the US and Russia on one side and Ukraine and most EU states on the other regarding what those root causes actually are. Hence, no concrete proposals for a ceasefire or negotiated peace were made in Alaska, at least not officially. However, since Trump did not insist on an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, there appears to be a mutual willingness to negotiate on Russia’s core concerns, such as Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia’s access to the Black Sea, and the protection of the pro-Russian population in Ukraine.

For President Putin, these preliminary decisions would be a major gain. Russian security concerns over NATO expansion into Ukraine and the US’s advance into the Black Sea region would be largely acknowledged – though not yet resolved. At the same time, large parts of the pro-Russian population could fall under Russian sovereignty.

For President Trump, this would mean the US could avoid the consequences of Ukraine’s looming military defeat. The US has taken similar steps in past conflicts – in Vietnam, under Trump’s presidency in Afghanistan, and also in Iraq and Libya. This would align with the wishes of many Americans who believe the US should no longer entangle itself in distant wars but instead focus on domestic issues—cities, roads, schools, jobs, and preserving industrial hubs. It would also allow Trump to sidestep pressure from Washington’s pro-war political and military elites—after all, he was elected as an anti-establishment president.

For Europeans—specifically, certain EU states and the United Kingdom—the situation looks very different. In the five-point counterproposal for negotiations, led by Merz, Macron, and Starmer, these European states remain entangled in their own war rhetoric. They continue to insist that the war in Ukraine is an unprovoked, illegal war of aggression by Russia and therefore insist that no concessions should be made to Russia. They fail to recognise the problem of NATO expansion and completely ignore the realities created on the battlefield.

With this unrealistic stance, the responsibility for the war in Ukraine will now fall to these European countries. Yet they will be unable to sustain the war either militarily or financially. The enormous sums required for rearming their own forces, rearming and rebuilding Ukraine, and supporting its potential EU membership while their economies go through recessions will further strain the already fragile solidarity among EU states.

By now, Ukrainians should realise that Europe will not – and cannot – save them. When Merz, Macron, and Starmer repeatedly suggest that continuing the war is better than accepting an “unfair” peace, they forget that it is not their blood, nor that of their children, that is being spilled. The claim that Ukraine must be supported militarily to improve its negotiating position is pure nonsense. Ukraine’s position has continuously deteriorated.

Ukraine must avoid the collapse of its army and prevent further territorial losses. It must end the immense suffering of its citizens and the growing destruction of the country. Ukraine needs peace to preserve the Ukrainian state.

The negotiations between the presidents of the US and Russia offer Ukraine a chance to take the initiative and join in the talks. But this will only be possible if Ukraine is willing to acknowledge the realities that have emerged from the war, avoid trying to change something they no longer can change, but instead begin focusing on its future. This means building good relations with all its neighbours. Such an approach could pay off through reconstruction funding, increased public and private investment, the opening of trade routes, and improved security. For various reasons, both Russia and the US need peace – and that opens a window of opportunity Ukraine should seize.

The eastern territories claimed by Russia today were only assigned to Ukraine in 1922 and Crimea in 1954. Losing them would not destroy Ukraine. On the contrary, it could help Ukraine become a more coherent state. It is not worth sacrificing entire generations of young people and risking a further depopulation of Ukraine for regions whose populations are largely hostile to Ukraine. Nor is it worth accepting further destruction of the country. A just peace, sadly, never exists – the goal must now be to secure the best possible outcome for future generations of Ukrainians. This can only be achieved through negotiation with the USA and Russia.

Even without these eastern territories, Kyiv will remain one of Europe’s great cultural metropolises, with roots stretching back to the Byzantine Empire. Odessa will continue to be a vital European port city, linking Ukraine to Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Southern Europe. Kharkiv will, in more peaceful times, serve as a bridge to its large neighbour Russia, and Lviv will remain the gateway to the European Union.

A secure, peaceful future for Ukraine should now be in everyone’s interest – whether the US, Russia, the European Union, China, or India. Achieving this through a peaceful resolution must be the shared goal of all parties to the conflict.